If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah

While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- has been doing. In a "Red Team" report issued on May 7 and entitled "Managing Hizballah and Hamas," senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams. While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.

Among its other findings, the five-page report calls for the integration of Hizballah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Hamas into the Palestinian security forces led by Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Red Team's conclusion, expressed in the final sentence of the executive summary, is perhaps its most controversial finding: "The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively" (emphasis in the original). The report goes on to note that while Hizballah and Hamas "embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies," the two groups are "pragmatic and opportunistic."

This is smart. It is a first step toward removing the hypocrisy of the US promoting democracy, yet rejecting democratic outcomes we disagree with. It also promises to go a long way of tearing down the true sanctuary that we have built for these organizations with our previous policies. Hamas and Hezbollah both take sanctuary in the very fact that we hold them to be outside the state, outside the law. By recognizing and incorporating them into our state engagement we deny them that sanctuary, and the entire entices and populaces of Palestine and Lebanon come to be held to account for their actions. This is the best thing we could do to help Israel as well.

Yes. Once these organizations are recognized as true parts of the states they come from, the simple rule of "strong state trumps weak state" applies. The liability of the weak states they represent will open up these organizations to tried and true tools of deterrence. Currently they have sanctuary from the same.

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

the five-page report calls for the integration of Hizballah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Hamas into the Palestinian security forces led by Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

I have to wonder if either Hamas or Hizballah would have any interest at all in any kind of integration that would place their armed forces under someone else's command. I have doubts.

By recognizing and incorporating them into our state engagement we deny them that sanctuary, and the entire entices and populaces of Palestine and Lebanon come to be held to account for their actions. This is the best thing we could do to help Israel as well.

Yes. Once these organizations are recognized as true parts of the states they come from, the simple rule of "strong state trumps weak state" applies.

Sorry Bob, none of that computes. Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?
Unless you get both organisations to dismantle their armed wing, and thus cease to exist, this is pure naiveté.

Dismantling the armed capability of two terrorist organisations is what helps - including equipment. Making them more dangerous by giving them access to national instruments of power does not. It does not make them more accountable either. How would it?

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

I know you don't understand, I wrote this for others.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Sorry Bob, none of that computes. Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?
Unless you get both organisations to dismantle their armed wing, and thus cease to exist, this is pure naiveté.

Dismantling the armed capability of two terrorist organisations is what helps - including equipment. Making them more dangerous by giving them access to national instruments of power does not. It does not make them more accountable either. How would it?

Don't feel sorry that you disagree, disagreement is ok. We are all entitled to our perspectives.

The very fact that much of the populace of these two states does not condone the actions of the two "terrorist" organizations functioning within them, that are allowed the freedom of manuever that this sanctuary of status allows them, is the very point.

Once this artificial sanctuary is reduced the right minded people of these comunities will have to take responsibility for the actions of these groups and will work internally to hold them to account. Currently they have no consequences, so take little action. Once their entire state is threatened by the acts of a few, the many will hold those few to task. No longer will the fiction of Hezbollah waging war with a neighboring state be possible; the reality of the entire state being held to task is fundamental to the working of the state system.

The terrorist list actually weakens the state system and empowers these organizations in many ways. After all once outside the law, the law has no deterrent effect. Similarly a populace able to shirk responsibility for the state-like acts of war of organizations made up of their citizens has little to fear from the law either, so is less apt to restrain them.

The world is changing, and our approaches to the world must evolve as well. Dusty texts written in eras long past provide keen insights, but they are not prescriptive manuals for how to operationalize those concepts in the environment that exists today.

Last edited by Bob's World; 07-01-2010 at 05:48 AM.

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

Don't feel sorry that you disagree, disagreement is ok. We are all entitled to our perspectives.

Concur. Who would think otherwise?

The very fact that much of the populace of these two states does not condone the actions of the two "terrorist" organizations withing them, that are allowed the freedom of manuever that this sanctuary of status allows them, is the very point.

...but that is not true. Very large and significant portions of the populations do condone their actions.
Hezbollah is extremely popular in Southern Lebanon, far more so than many in the West want to believe, because the central government is so inconsequential to the population in the South.
Hamas is the same. Hamas is seen as the de-facto Palestinian Army and Nation, by a great many Palestinians in Gaza. West Bank is essentially another country.

Once this artificial sanctuary is reduced the right minded people of these comunities will have to take responsibility for the actions of these groups and will work internally to hold them to account.

By "right minded" you mean pro-western moderates? Sorry, but there folk have no standing or respect in the vast majority of the communities you are talking about. Fact is, in the Southern Lebanon and Gaza, peace with Israel is largely unacceptable to the vast majority of the population. Hezbollah and Hamas are defined by the cause of destroying Israel.
Saying "make them part of a bigger cause" is utterly foolish. Then you just have two more nation states who want to destroy Israel.

The world is changing, and our approaches to the world must evolve as well.

Sorry, but the world is people and people don't change that much - especially in the Middle-East. Opinions and ideas basically remain constant. Form alters, function very, very rarely.

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

"Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?"

So I suggest that by recoginizing these groups as part of the state they would more likely be held to task by such others. But then, you come back with:

"but that is not true. Very large and significant portions of the populations do condone their actions"

To which I would add "of course, all the more reason to recognize that these organizations speak for the state and that the state should be held accountable as well as the organizations for their actions."

We grant these groups sanctuary. Not just these two groups, in these two states; but ALL such groups in whatever states they emerge from. The information age (that yes, I realize you are equally dismissive of), or more importantly the knowledge age, that is fueled by the greater speed and availability of information is empowering populaces and non-state organizations in new ways. States are the last to recognize and adjust to this; as usual it is the previously disempowered (people as individuals and as organizations) that embrace the new tools first; and the ones who have power who resist it most as applied against them.

Either way you slice it, be it that these groups don't or do speak and act for the people of the state; the fact remains that they are more easily deterred from acting badly when allowed to operate within the system, and also held to task by the system. Outside the system they enjoy a tremendous sanctuary that I suspect we don't appreciate because so many still believe the simplistic cliche' that "sanctuary comes from ungoverned spaces."

Yet one more example of Fairy Tale-based COIN doctrine (the first being the Pied Piper theory of ideology, that well governed populaces will become radicalized by some seductive ideology and follow the espouser of the same to their doom.)

This one is "The Sherwood Forest theory of Sanctuary." Everyone knows how Robin Hood and his Merry Band took sanctuary in Sherwood Forest; but if the forest was destroyed or somehow denied to them, would they have no more sanctuary?? Of course not, there are other forests for what a forest provides; but more importantly the true sanctuary came from the support of a poorly governed populace (the illegitimacy and injustice of Prince John is legend as well), and their outlaw status itself. Sanctuary comes from such popular support and legal status (a sovereign border, a lack of state affiliation, an outlaw status). As an aside, we approach the AF-Pak problem like a mob of woodcutters going after Sherwood Forest. Even if you cut it down, you have only forced a change of address if you have not addressed the primary sources of sanctuary.

We need to move past fairy tale COIN and get real. We need to get real with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the states they live in as well.

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

unassessed implicit assumptions...

...are the bane of analysis everywhere. I know its a RED TEAM product and therefore is meant to be challenging and not taken too seriously (nothing wrong with thinking outside the box) but some propositions (and their implicit unexamined premises) caught my eye:

#1 Hamas and Fatah to work together? So what's been stopping them (AFIAK they hate each others guts). Fatah is a broadly speaking secularist organisation (this doesn't mean they are anti-Islamic or belive in separation of church and state but equates rather more to a pragmatic approach) whereas Hamas wants to destroy Israel in toto (if they don't, and the policy statement in their charter is just bunkum then ...why don't they delete it?). Fateh equates to a nationalist movement whilst Hamas equates to the political expression of the Ikwan's goals (and thus only the first step in a larger regional project). The one wants territorial co-existence (after a fashion) the other annihilation of Israel as the first step to the recreation of a regional Islamic re-awkening (Utopian, yes, but that doesn't mean they won't try; i.e., Bolshevism, Nazism, the French Revolution); hardly compatible policy positions. Getting the rival leaderships (and their international partners who manipulate things behind the scenes and risk losing influence/face) is another rquestion entirely.

#2 Integrating Hizb-allah's military wing into the Lebanese armed forces would simply turn that institution into a front organisation for Hizballah. Not forgetting that hizballah's political reach would be further extended and deepened into Lebanese society essentially, to my ears anyway, this sounds a lot like assisted state capture. Why not resussetate (sp?) Amal instead as a rival to Hizballah? G-d only knows what would happen to the internal sectarian and ethnic correllation of forces in what is, lets be honest, an extremely fragile state. Indeed, its only because Lebanon has been able to segregate Hizballah in the south by assigining what ammounts to a sphere of political influence that it has managed to attain some kind of functional administration elsewhere.

"Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?"

So I suggest that by recoginizing these groups as part of the state they would more likely be held to task by such others.

Why would you recognise those who violently oppose you? Why share power with them and why with you

"but that is not true. Very large and significant portions of the populations do condone their actions"

To which I would add "of course, all the more reason to recognize that these organizations speak for the state and that the state should be held accountable as well as the organizations for their actions."

Why would their supporters want them to become irrelevant by ceasing to set forth their policy? Hezbollah is supported BECAUSE it is not the Lebanese Army. The Shia in the South are no particular friends of the Christians up on the Chouf and in Beirut below.

Either way you slice it, be it that these groups don't or do speak and act for the people of the state; the fact remains that they are more easily deterred from acting badly when allowed to operate within the system, and also held to task by the system.

So why would they want to do that - IF that was indeed the case? Do you really think this is something they don't know? They might be unreasonable, but they ain't stupid.

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

I am of two minds. First I find it refreshing that the explosion of communications has allowed this kind of discussion to arrive in the political sphere. Second, I find it distressing that the military establishment is having to raise the discussion point.

As for opinions, I think that our cultural bias toward nationalism and love of borders as a way of organizing social issues colors this proposal heavily. For people who are still highly resentful of the way colonial powers applied borders to disrupt their societies this might look like asking them to sign away their last hope for "justice".

I make no implication of stupitidy on the people of the Lavant

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Why would you recognise those who violently oppose you? Why share power with them and why with you
Why would their supporters want them to become irrelevant by ceasing to set forth their policy? Hezbollah is supported BECAUSE it is not the Lebanese Army. The Shia in the South are no particular friends of the Christians up on the Chouf and in Beirut below.

So why would they want to do that - IF that was indeed the case? Do you really think this is something they don't know? They might be unreasonable, but they ain't stupid.

The implication, if indeed it is one, is on Western policy makers for not seeing that they need to take a new tact in dealing with this situation. The current tact of simply pouring more and more support into Israel to defend itself against the current structures around it is perhaps something many would call "stupid." The current tact also robs Israel of legitimacy in the eyes of its Arab neighbors, who deep in their hearts believe that it can only exist as a state with the support of Western powers, thereby driving them to destroy it far more than any (ideological) issues of religion do.

We help Israel more by helping them less; and

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

It may be counter-intuitive to many, but if the course we've been following for years is the "intuitive" one, I'd say it's long overdue to look seriously at the "counter."

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?

Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?

Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)

Legitimacy comes from the people, regardless of what outsiders "recognize"

Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii

Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?

Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?

Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)

Hamas won a majority in the 2006 elections, and the West pouted. We want democracy, but only when it produces the results WE want. Shame on Israel and the "Quartet on the Middle East" for their response to that populace exercising its right to popular sovereignty and self-determination.

Similarly, in addition to its militant and large social service branches, Hezbollah holds several seats in Lebanon’s Parliament. They are part of the government.

I categorize these two groups as "quasi-state" actors. They are much like Army Warrant Officers. They are part of the government when it suits them, and they are outside the government and the law when it suits them. The West, like Army Commissioned Officers, allows them to play this silly game because we're not quite sure what to do with them.

We need to quit giving them the out, the sanctuary, of pretending they are not responsible for what their "outside the law" components do. Similarly, we need to hold the entire States and their populace accountable as well.

We have no tools that are effective for deterring or motivating a Hezbollah or Hamas so long as we put them on terrorist lists and refuse to recognize them as legitimate parts of these governments.

We do the same nonsense when we say "The ISI is sponsoring the Taliban." Why give Pakistan this out? Because we don't want to provoke a nuclear state?

We are better served, I think, by recognizing reality, and holding the majority responsible for the actions of their legitimate components.

Or we need to play the same game, as in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

The current tact also robs Israel of legitimacy in the eyes of its Arab neighbors, who deep in their hearts believe that it can only exist as a state with the support of Western powers, thereby driving them to destroy it far more than any (ideological) issues of religion do.

Sorry, but nothing ANYONE can do will make Israel legitimate in Arab eyes. Nothing. That IS the source of the conflict? There is no peaceful resolution, other than recognition, or destruction.

We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.

That makes no sense. They are armed organisations. No arms, no existence. Recognising their legitimacy just makes them stronger.
"Give up the armed struggle and we will recognise you?" Is that the offer? If they are not being instrumental in opposing Israel, they will cease to exist.

Neither the populations or government would see themselves as responsible for their actions. Hezbollah doesn't become more vulnerable because its part of the Lebanese Government and Army. It just has access to greater resources/funds/manpower.

Moreover Hamas are the de-facto state in Gaza, and, as you note, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese Government. How is the Lebanese Government NOT responsible for Hezbollah action, right now? The exist in the Lebanon under the protection and patronage of the Lebanese.

What about inviting the Taliban to help form a Government in Kabul or Al Quaida in Iraq? Make any sense?

Last edited by William F. Owen; 07-01-2010 at 03:27 PM.

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Actually Karzai is inviting the Taliban to help form the government in Kabul, and it makes tremendous sense.

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency. Takes away their position that they are excluded from legal participation, and also forces them to have to actually perform, or merely be part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

The Levant is an emotional issue for many, and that clouds clear thinking, it certainly clouds US policy toward the region.

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

Sorry, but the world is people and people don't change that much - especially in the Middle-East. Opinions and ideas basically remain constant. Form alters, function very, very rarely.

I couldn't disagree more. I think if anything the history of most of the last two centuries has been one of people changing their opinions and ideas in enormously revolutionary ways across the world, including in the Middle East, at a higher rate than has ever before existed in human history.

I couldn't disagree more. I think if anything the history of most of the last two centuries has been one of people changing their opinions and ideas in enormously revolutionary ways across the world, including in the Middle East, at a higher rate than has ever before existed in human history.

Actually I'd agree but that was not the context of my statement.
Bob said "we're evolving." OK, but that's largely irrelevant to the nature of a problem with 2,000 years of reasons. The causes of conflict where I live are not things driven by recent events. They date back 1,000 of years in some cases. - and as recently as 60 years in others. A lot of other places as well.

I fully accept that society alters it politics, ethics and values, but it reverts to basics once folks start dying. Massacres and Genocide's mostly come from enduring ideas, not new ones.

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Even British COIN recognizes the value of giving members of the insurgency real, but not too powerful, positions in the government help resolve an insurgency.

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

The right of an Armed Populace is a critical component of American COIN

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.

That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"

The arms issues is always a sticky one. Its the classic trust issue in any "Mexican stand-off" - who puts their gun down first? My personal position is that an armed populace is a critical component for keeping governments in check. The very fact that an armed populace is so challenging to a government in times of insurgency is the reason why the populace must remain armed. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

The problem, of course, is not the arms, but rather the motivation of populace to use them illegally to coerce changes in State behavior. Better when they are used in the passive role of the State not getting into certain bad behavior because they know the people are armed.

I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movenment to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.

I always discourage any talk of weapon's turn-in programs as short-sighted, impractical, and not likely to produce the very COIN effects that are desired by the program.

An Armed and Informed populace with a Voice and a Vote is the "Fourth Branch" of government in the US. This is what keeps the other three branches from getting in cahoots with each other to the detriment of liberty "for our own good."

Robert C. JonesIntellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self."Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movement to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.

The problem with this formulation, to me, is that when a movement has its own army the government no longer has the capacity to require or compel them to do anything they don't want to do. I very much doubt that Hizballah, Hamas, or the Taliban see their arms as "the populace's weapons", or that they have they any intention of placing their armed forces under the command of any government they cannot control. Why should they?

Sure, the Karzai government can offer participation to the Taliban. The predictable response is that this can only be discussed when the foreigners leave. The situation on the ground doesn't change, and the Taliban reinforce the perception that they are not an insurgency fighting Karzai, but a resistance movement fighting a foreign occupier. Of course if the foreigners leave the Taliban won't be joining the Karzai government, they'll be trying to replace it.

I can't see any reason why Hizballah would voluntarily turn over command of their armed forces to the Lebanese government, or why Hamas would turn over theirs to the PA? What would they gain? What's the point of making offers that will surely be seen as completely pointless, and will surely be refused?